RSF@SU-AI.ARPA (08/22/84)
From: Ross Finlayson <RSF@SU-AI.ARPA>
n086 1802 21 Aug 84
AM-LUNAR
Moon Could Be Big 'Gas Station' in the Sky
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
LA JOLLA, Calif. - A panel of scientists and engineers Tuesday
reported to the space agency that it ''makes sense'' for future space
operations to exploit materials found on the moon and in asteroids
rather than rely on materials from Earth.
The panel's oral recommendation to officials of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to be followed by a written
report, came after 10 weeks of debate. The panel members disagreed
over whether a permanent moon base should be established to mine
oxygen for rocket fuel.
The panel was one of several sponsored by the space agency to study
the future of space exploration. A second study group, which met in
April at Los Alamos, N.M., says it will recommend in October that the
United States establish a permanent moon base in the next decade. A
NASA group is also studying the feasibility of a moon base.
Some participants in the study here disagreed with the panel's
recommendation, saying that all the resources needed to support space
exploration are abundant on Earth. All that is needed, these
dissidents said, is to find cheaper ways to deliver Earth's resources
into orbit.
According to Stan Sadin, deputy director of program development at
NASA, the space agency financed the $62,000 study to ''help us decide
where we're going'' after 1992, when a space station authorized by
President Reagan is scheduled to become operational.
The study was co-sponsored by the American Society for Engineering
and hosted by the California Space Institute, a part of the
University of California system located in La Jolla.
The 20 participants, more than half of whom had no previous
connection with NASA, included a physician, behavioral scientist,
architect, chemist, management specialist and law professor, as well
as several geologists, space scientists and engineers. Dozens of
space experts testified before the group throughout the study.
The analogy of conquering a new frontier was dominant throughout the
''summer study,'' Sadin said, referring to the idea that initial
reconnaissance is followed by stages of exploration, which, in turn,
are followed by exploitation.
The study began with two basic assumptions, said David McKay, a
geologist at the Johnson Space Center who led the overall exercise.
One assumption, he said, is of a permanent, growing human presence in
space. The other is that humans in space will inevitably want to
become more self-sufficient in terms of materials, supplies,
management and operations.
''Pioneers used local wood and stone to make shelter, roads and
wagons,'' McKay said. ''We will use material in space to supply
shelter and transportation.''
Tuesday's space program, he pointed out, is virtually dependent on
Earth. ''Can we learn how to constrict the umbilical cord to Earth?''
he asked.
Those in favor of using space resources point out that the moon, by
composition, is half oxygen, which could be extracted, according to
the former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, to fuel rockets. Liquid hydrogen
mixed with liquid oxygen in a basic propellant.
Metals and bulk soil can also be mined to build shelters, Aldrin
said. Since the moon's gravitational field is a sixth the strength of
Earth's, he added, it would be cheaper and easier to satisfy a large
fraction of our space needs with lunar materials.
In this view, the moon should become a gigantic ''gas station'' in
the sky. Asteroids are viewed as similarly valuable. One small
asteroid can apparently yield a billion to 10 billion tons of water.
The reason to go to the moon, said James Burke, a space expert at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is that ''it can help us transcend our
problems.''
''A lunar base deserves national support,'' he said, ''because if it
manages to divert money away from the weapons race, everyone is
better off.''
Other study participants disagreed. ''A lunar base is a dead-end,''
said Rocco Fazzolare, an energy expert at the University of Arizona.
And William Lewis, of Clemson University, said, ''It's silly to put
Manhattan on the moon.''
''We can make oxygen on Earth for pennies,'' Fazzolare said. ''We're
a water planet. I think we should concentrate on building a better
transportation system to deliver what we want in space.
''The shuttle is like a little scout. It comfortably carries a few
people at a time. We need a big 18-wheeler, we need a big dumb
booster.''
Also, he said, the moon does not have an abundant source of
hydrogen, which is also required for rocket fuel. If liquid hydrogen
made on Earth has to be carried into space to be mixed with oxygen
extracted from the moon, he said, ''we're wasting our time.''
There may be philosophical reasons to go to the moon, Fazzolare
said, but ''we should go there to scout things out, not to build a
huge lunar station.''
''From a national security viewpoint we should go and that is
rationale enough,'' he added.
The Soviet Union appears to be developing large booster rockets and
experimenting with long sorties in space, said . Sadin. ''There are
indications they are interested in the moon,'' he added.
A study participant who is an expert on space law, Nathan Goldman,
of the University of Texas, said the United States held that no one
can own the moon. ''But whoever gets there first,'' he said, ''will
have a big say in how it is used.''
nyt-08-21-84 2100edt
**********